Thread Rating:

camz1969
camz1969
Joined: Dec 6, 2016
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 35
January 19th, 2021 at 4:56:02 PM permalink
I agree. I was just putting clarity into the Pascal's Wager debate in that you were both right depending on all of the details of the individual gambler. It could apply or it could not. As far as craps though, yea I don't think you can ever overcome the spikes and all casinos will make you hit them as far as I know which is why I have no interest in craps and stick to blackjack. I will say this though...if I actually realized I could control the dice with the spikes I would not tell anybody except for a trusted few if I needed a team. Lol
camz1969
camz1969
Joined: Dec 6, 2016
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 35
January 19th, 2021 at 5:08:45 PM permalink
Well, I meant I agreed with everything you said except "the idea with DI that you have nothing to lose, only to gain is simply not true"...you don't have to buy a book or do anything except try to DI next time you were going to play anyway. If you are referring strictly to people that are going to invest money or invest in some type of training then yes those are costs that will end up losses if it doesn't work. I'll also add IF I ever decide to play craps I will absolutely try to control the dice in some way. Why wouldn't I? If I can't I can't but why wouldn't I at least try? It costs me nothing to try vs just pick them up without even looking and throw them wildly.
unJon
unJon 
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 2355
January 19th, 2021 at 5:16:47 PM permalink
Quote: camz1969

Well, I meant I agreed with everything you said except "the idea with DI that you have nothing to lose, only to gain is simply not true"...you don't have to buy a book or do anything except try to DI next time you were going to play anyway. If you are referring strictly to people that are going to invest money or invest in some type of training then yes those are costs that will end up losses if it doesn't work. I'll also add IF I ever decide to play craps I will absolutely try to control the dice in some way. Why wouldn't I? If I can't I can't but why wouldn't I at least try? It costs me nothing to try vs just pick them up without even looking and throw them wildly.



Itís not worth it. He doesnít want to see the analogy. Itís become semantics.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
Chapz
Chapz
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 23
January 19th, 2021 at 6:16:26 PM permalink
Quote: unJon

Itís not worth it. He doesnít want to see the analogy. Itís become semantics.



Weird. I thought I was having a conversation with myself.
"To beat a random game you have to be good at being random."
unJon
unJon 
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 2355
January 19th, 2021 at 7:09:47 PM permalink
Quote: Chapz

Weird. I thought I was having a conversation with myself.



Another elucidation of a facet of PW. Clever.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
TumblingBones
TumblingBones
Joined: Dec 25, 2016
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 437
January 20th, 2021 at 7:25:56 AM permalink
Quote: camz1969

If gambler X is going to spend Y amount of dollars ANYWAY until he/she loses it all to -EV then PW type logic applies because there is no loss created from trying DI. The total loss from -EV is going to happen either way so DI itself has zero risk in that scenario. The loss really has zero connection to the DI itself. Like it was stated earlier, if they sit out some rolls DI actually becomes a gain as far as rate of loss. However, if gambler X "learns" DI to begin playing craps or plays MORE craps because they think it will work, it becomes a loss if they are wrong. So you're both right depending on the intentions of the gambler.


Spot on. Pascal's Wager is not the chips on the pass line but rather a supplemental bet 'placed' in the sense of making the effort to toss the dice in a controlled manner. If, as Camz points out, the DI mind-set does not induce Pascal to gamble a greater amount of $$, then the scenario matches the criteria of PW.

Now for next week's seminar on "Philosophy and Gambling" I would like to suggest the topic of Poker and the Open World Hypothesis.
My goal of being well informed conflicts with my goal of remaining sane.
unJon
unJon 
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 2355
Thanks for this post from:
TumblingBones
January 20th, 2021 at 7:34:11 AM permalink
Quote: TumblingBones

Spot on. Pascal's Wager is not the chips on the pass line but rather a supplemental bet 'placed' in the sense of making the effort to toss the dice in a controlled manner. If, as Camz points out, the DI mind-set does not induce Pascal to gamble a greater amount of $$, then the scenario matches the criteria of PW.

Now for next week's seminar on "Philosophy and Gambling" I would like to suggest the topic of Poker and the Open World Hypothesis.

I like that. If we are voting, I would toss in a session on Naïve Inductivism and Blackjack: Lessons from the Turkey in November.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
TumblingBones
TumblingBones
Joined: Dec 25, 2016
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 437
January 20th, 2021 at 8:14:53 AM permalink
An excellent session suggestion but I fear we must first address a taxonomic issue: under which forum topic would "Philosophy and Gambling" threads go? None of the existing ones fit.
My goal of being well informed conflicts with my goal of remaining sane.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 125
  • Posts: 13181
January 21st, 2021 at 2:07:44 PM permalink
Quote: TumblingBones

Spot on. Pascal's Wager is not the chips on the pass line but rather a supplemental bet 'placed' in the sense of making the effort to toss the dice in a controlled manner. If, as Camz points out, the DI mind-set does not induce Pascal to gamble a greater amount of $$, then the scenario matches the criteria of PW.

Now for next week's seminar on "Philosophy and Gambling" I would like to suggest the topic of Poker and the Open World Hypothesis.



The slight difference between DI and Pascal's Wager (not that it's a bad comparison otherwise) is that one of the prepositions leading to Pascal's Wager is that he was absolutely going to die no matter what AND had no choice but to participate in the God/no God game, on the other hand, nobody has to play Craps.
Vultures can't be choosers.
Chapz
Chapz
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 23
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
January 21st, 2021 at 5:09:59 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Quote: TumblingBones

Spot on. Pascal's Wager is not the chips on the pass line but rather a supplemental bet 'placed' in the sense of making the effort to toss the dice in a controlled manner. If, as Camz points out, the DI mind-set does not induce Pascal to gamble a greater amount of $$, then the scenario matches the criteria of PW.

Now for next week's seminar on "Philosophy and Gambling" I would like to suggest the topic of Poker and the Open World Hypothesis.



The slight difference between DI and Pascal's Wager (not that it's a bad comparison otherwise) is that one of the prepositions leading to Pascal's Wager is that he was absolutely going to die no matter what AND had no choice but to participate in the God/no God game, on the other hand, nobody has to play Craps.



Pascal's Wager: "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."

The problem with PW is it is false that you lose nothing. There is always an opportunity cost. For example if you believe God exists and you religiously attended church every Sun (even though you don't want to go at times) and it is later determined God does NOT exist, you just LOST the opportunity to have gone to a football game or a round of golf every Sunday.

Same with DI. I'm talking about DIs that purchase books, programs, classes, equipment and spend countless hours practicing and recording their throws on spreadsheets and videos. I'm not talking about the person that watches youtube videos or read blogs on DI and then decides to try it. Those people aren't really affecting the dice. That's like me watching a youtube video or reading a book on brain surgery and then calling myself a brain surgeon.

PW does not apply to casino games with (DI or not) because it clearly fails if you lose, you lose nothing.

If DI doesn't work, the real DI students lost money spent on books, classes, equipment, and hours of wasted practice. And they will have lost money on their wagers. And the 'well you're gonna lose money anyway, doesn't hurt to try DI" doesn't work either because you are assuming a random roll would have lost too. What if the DI roll lost, and the random roll won?

The only way to not lose is to not play.
"To beat a random game you have to be good at being random."

  • Jump to: